Promotion & Tenure Workshop August 19, 2009

1. Promotion & Tenure WorkshopAugust 19, 2009

2. Agenda • Tenure and Promotion Eligibility • Preparing for Tenure and Promotion • Tenure and Promotion Process • Obtaining External Reviewers • Department T/P Committee • Preparing your Packet • Process Timetable • Questions

3. Tenure Eligibility • Review generally occurs during sixth year at MWSU. • Year for tenure review is identified in your contract. • If you feel there is an error on the year for your review, discuss this with Chair, Dean, and Provost.

4. Delaying Tenure Review: • Faculty may request a delay in tenure review due to external demands, such as Serious Illnesses; Pregnancy, Adoption, Foster child care; Substantial Caregiver responsibilities; Military Service, Legal Issues, etc. • Procedure: submit application, and appropriate documentation to Department Chair  Dean  Provost • Provost makes final decision. • Delaying Tenure review moves Mid-Tenure and Tenure Review dates back by one year. Expectations for Tenure review do not change. • Only one Delay is generally permitted. • Delay cannot be used to postpone an expected difficult or negative tenure review.

5. Promotion Guidelines: Instructor  Assistant • Immediate upon completion of Terminal Degree (PG, p.78) • This promotion does not affect Tenure Track Status.

6. Promotion Guidelines: Assistant  Associate • Application is made at same time as Tenure • Typically Six Years as Assistant Professor (apply during 6th year) • If given credit toward tenure, you are still eligible for promotion at same time as tenure. • Tenured faculty can apply for promotion to Associate at any time.

7. Performance Levels • Strong teaching effectiveness when compared with other MWSU faculty. • Continuous, significant growth in scholarship/creative activity • Active, constructive service to benefit students, the institution, the discipline/profession and/or community

8. Promotion Guidelines: Associate  Professor • Application made during Fifth year at the rank of Associate Professor. • Terminal Degree or Exceptional Service required.

9. Performance Levels • High quality teaching when compared with other MWSU faculty. • Significant professional service to benefit students, the institution, the discipline/profession, and/or the community. • A pattern of consistent, significant professional growth.

10. Preparing for Promotion and Tenure Gather Artifacts: Box, File, or Folder • Conferences (Program, nametag, etc) • Papers (Published copy – not submitted) • Committee Work (minutes, outcomes) • Lesson Plans / Exams / Projects • Evaluations Enter information into Digital Measures.

11. Preparing for Promotion and Tenure • Annual Reviews • Self Evaluation: \Set annual goals and analyze your progress toward those goals. • Chair Evaluation: Department Chair reviews your Self Evaluation and offers his/her assessment of your efforts. • Dean / Provost Evaluation: Dean and Provost review Self and Chair Evaluations and offer comments/suggestions.

12. Preparing for Promotion and Tenure • Annual Reviews • Take comments from Chair, Dean, and Provost seriously. • Example: If Chair comments that you need improvement in service, work with your chair to find places you can serve. • In your next Self Evaluation, discuss what you have done to improve in that area. • Do not ignore suggestions for improvement.

13. Preparing for Promotion and Tenure • Mid-Tenure Reviews • Completed in the year indicated in your contract. • Initiated by Department Chair. However, if you chair has not started, go see your chair ASAP. • Same process as for Tenure Review: • Obtain External Review (highly recommended) • Submit Packet by October 15th • Reviewed by Department Committee, Chair, and Dean.

14. Preparing for Promotion and Tenure • Mid-Tenure Reviews • Take comments from your committee, chair and dean seriously. • MT Review is to prepare you for the actual tenure review. • Tenure Reviewers will want to see evidence that you have addressed issues raised in MT Review.

15. Promotion and Tenure Review Process • Obtain External Reviewers • Organize Department Review Committee • Prepare P/T Packet • Process Timetable

16. External Reviewers • Chair and candidate confer on 2-3 possible reviewers • Candidate submits to chair a brief disclosure statement, giving any knowledge/relationships to reviewers • Candidate provides chair with packet of scholarly work to submit to reviewer. • Chair contacts reviewers to solicit confidential review. • Confidential reviews (at least one) are returned to chair (by Oct 17) and included in packet by Department Chair. • Confidential reviews are removed from packet by Provost before packets are returned to candidate.

17. Department Review Committee • Department Chair appoints committee (with consultation from candidate) • Committee Membership: • From candidate’s discipline, or allied disciplines • Tenured faculty • Committee should be small • Members review the candidate’s packet and submit their evaluation to candidate and to department chair. • Where possible, same committee serves for Mid Tenure and Tenure Reviews.

18. Preparing Your P/T Packet • One three-ring notebook, not to exceed TWO INCHES in thickness. • All material should be easily accessible without having to be removed to be read. • Tabbed index dividers are encouraged to help evaluators locate documentation • Plastic page protectors are not required. • A second notebook containing ALL student evaluations received during the review period, or for the most recent five years.

19. Organization of the Packet • Table of Contents • Introductory Narrative • Curriculum Vita • Annual Evaluations (Self, Chair, Dean) • Mid-Tenure Evaluation • Artifacts: 1. Teaching 2. Service 3. Scholarship

20. Narrative • Explain to reviewers why you are qualified for tenure and/or promotion. • Include qualitative and quantitative comparisons which demonstrate your performance in relation to other departmental and institutional faculty. • Analyze, explain, and contextualize data presented in terms of teaching, scholarly/ creative activity, and service. • Reference specific documentation as evidence in your narrative.

21. Artifact Sections • Sections for Teaching, Service, and Scholarship • Narrative at the beginning of each section presenting your analysis of the included documentation. Why and how is the documentation significant? • Artifacts. well organized, referenced artifacts • It is not necessary to include everything you have done. Analyze the artifacts that you have collected and determine which make a compelling argument for your tenure and/or promotion.

22. Evidence of Teaching Quality • Narrative explaining and synthesizing the artifacts supporting the candidates teaching effectiveness. • Syllabi, teaching resource guides, web materials, posted notes, and other teaching materials • Creative, challenging, and competent student learning evaluation measures such as examinations, quizzes, writing assignments, and other assignments appropriate for the subject matter • Copies of graded material that shows appropriate rigor and engagement in the assessment of student work • New course preparation or course component, special pedagogical practices, and/or special tutorial/ individualized work • Curriculum development

23. Evidence of Teaching Quality (continued) • Records of advising, and/or counseling • Peer evaluations from colleagues • Letters of support from students • Evidence of student learning opportunities beyond the classroom that are relevant to the discipline such as a film program, a class trip, a campus event, or some similar co-curricular opportunity • Documentation showing participation in campus initiatives related to teaching such as learning communities, honors programs, and applied learning • Documentation showing respect for students.

24. Evaluation of Service • Narrative describing and synthesizing the artifacts supporting the candidates service. • Service is typically from a variety of the following areas: • Service to Students • Service to Institution • Discipline/Profession • Community

25. Evidence of Service to Students • Examples of student projects not associated with the faculty member’s assigned workload • Notes, slides, and or programs for out-of-class seminars to students on academic and student affairs topics • Documentation of academic advising (including number of advisees) and mentoring activities such as sponsorship of independent student work.

26. Evidence of Service to Institution • Documentation showing leadership provided for a committee or an academic unit, such as reports, memos, and so forth (i.e., This PowerPoint will appear in my Promotion Packet) • Documentation showing membership on Faculty Senate or active membership on a Faculty Senate, institutional, or departmental committee, such as bills proposed, assignments completed and so forth • Documentation of representation of the institution on a community project or in a partnership project.

27. Evidence of Service to Discipline • Documentation of accreditation activities • Documentation of professional journal editorship or serving as a peer reviewer or juror • Documentation of professional conference, panel, or event organization • Documentation showing elected office in a professional society • Documentation showing other work in a professional association

28. Evidence of Service to Community • Program from presentations or performances open to the public • Documentation from economic or community development activities • Documentation showing service as a board member for a community non-profit organization • Documentation showing program consultation • Documentation showing work with area literacy groups • Written or video work in non-academic media outlets.

29. Evidence of Scholarship/Creative Activity • Narrative that explains and synthesizes the artifacts included in support of scholarship/creative activity • All evidence of scholarship or creative activity must be accompanied by, or show evidence of, peer review. • Types of Scholarship Activity: • Scholarship of Discovery • Scholarship of Integration • Scholarship of Application • Scholarship of Teaching

30. Evidence of Scholarship of Discovery • A published article, monograph, or book that advances understanding (Such artifacts have been reviewed by peers in the publication process) • Original research presented in an academic paper or other academic venue (Such artifacts have been judged by peers in the review process as worthy of public discussion) • Artifacts such as poems, paintings, theatrical productions (or other works of original expression) that have been reviewed in a jury process • A successful grant application for basic research/ scholarly/ creative activity.

31. Evidence of Scholarship of Integration • Published article or textbook or a juried presentation that summarizes or synthesizes earlier scholarly work and/or crosses disciplinary boundaries. • A published book or software review or a review article. • Presentations selected for a scholarly/professional meeting which present a critique or frame a position (paper) in a scholarly/professional debate • Published bibliographies • Artifacts that are published or presented that provide critical analysis of scholarly projects, artistic exhibits or performances, or museum exhibits • Successful grant applications for projects that integrate already existing scholarly resources.

32. Evidence of Scholarship of Application • Artistic exhibits or performances, or museum exhibits • Publications or juried presentations that focus on applications or practical problems in the field • Activities to acquire or maintain certification for disciplinary specialties (process should be described) • Consulting (peer reviewed) • Successful grant applications for projects that focus on application problems

33. Evidence of Scholarship of Teaching • Publications or juried presentations that focus on issues of pedagogy or any aspect of the instructional mission of the institution • Written studies or reviews (that include a peer review element), which focus on assessment • Successful grant applications for projects that focus on practical problems linked to any dimension of instruction.

34. What happens to your packet after it is submitted? • Due to Department Chair by October 15th • Chair adds external reviews and gives packet to Department Committee by Oct 17th • Department Committee reviews packet and submits their review to Chair and Candidate by Dec 1st. • Department Chair reviews packet and submits review to Dean and Candidate by Jan 7th. • Dean reviews packet and submits review to Provost and Candidate by Feb 1st. • P/T Committee reviews packets and submits review to Provost and Candidate by Apr 4th • Provost reviews packet and submits review to Candidate by May 5th • Provost submits recommendation to President and President submits recommendation to Board of Governors for Approval at May meeting.

35. Responses to Evaluations • Candidate can submit a written response to each of the evaluations. • Response must be submitted by 4:30 pm, on the day specified in the evaluation time table. • Response is submitted to the person who receives the packet after the evaluator. • Responses are then included in the packet.

36. Appearance before Promotion & Tenure Subcommittee • The candidate has the option of appearing before the subcommittee reviewing his or her evaluation package to briefly discuss materials documented in the evaluation package. • Applicants cannot appear before the entire Promotion/Tenure Committee. • No new materials may be introduced. • To exercise this option, the candidate must notify the Promotion/Tenure Committee Chairperson in writing by February 3.

37. Questions